4 ms·

Ah, the rebirth of heavy metal. It reminds me of that old Marx's quote: "History repeats itself - first as tragedy, then as farce" edit for the downvoters: I'

by Udik 11y ago

Ah, the rebirth of heavy metal. It reminds me of that old Marx's quote: "History repeats itself - first as tragedy, then as farce" edit for the downvoters: I've listened to a lot of heavy metal in my teens. It kind of had sense at the time (late eighties, early nineties) - heavy metal had evolved naturally from other genres, and probably it's a type of music that appeals to a certain kind of person in a certain environment and age range (and that would explain its persistence). Nonetheless, it's a pretty ridiculous and backwards musical genre, extremely rigid and codified and, in my view, hardly evolving at all. The sight of the idols of my youth, now well aged but still dressed like satanists, monks or ancient warriors, and still singing the same stuff after decades, is a sorry one. Now you can downvote me more :)

fsloth 11y ago
This is quite a surprising view. "Not evolving" bit especially. As a factual example of evolution in the non-satanist non-warrior sense Nightwish's latest album 'Endless forms most beautiful' "was primarily inspired by the work of naturalist Charles Darwin". [1] Pun intended :) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endless_Forms_Most_Beautiful_(album) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endless_Forms_Most_Beautiful_(...
vacri 11y ago
> still singing the same stuff after decades, is a sorry one. I imagine you consider classical music backwards, then, and look down upon it. It's stayed the same for centuries...
- ta0967 11y ago
  > It's stayed the same for centuries... that's _seriously_ wrong.
gaius 11y ago
There are plenty of new genres since then, power metal, space metal, pirate metal...
venomsnake 11y ago
Can you explain the non evolving part? We have so many new subgenres and bands with excellent technical capabilities?
cjslep 11y ago
I'm curious what you've listened to that makes you think it hasn't evolved since those times. Bathory, Cradle Of Filth, Napalm Death, Belphegor, Skeletonwitch, Dream Theatre, Watain, Kalmah, Exodus, Daylight Dies? Because there's a lot of new stuff that broke out cleanly into sub-genres (Insomnium, In Flames, Amon Amarth, Septicflesh, Avantasia, Blind Guardian, Eluveite, Sleep, Abagail Williams, Alestorm etc) and now there's quite a few bands that blur those lines as a form of counter-culture (Deafhaven, Fallujah, Meshuggah, Atoma).
mclovinit 11y ago
Hmm. I wouldn't say it's backwards. It's nothing more than another art form (sounds so cliche, but true nonetheless). If it is backwards, what is considered the defacto standard? The same could be said for Jazz, Pop, Classical when compared to others. I happen to love metal (older 80s to 90s), but listen to anything newer that gets me through a good workout in the garage ;) Maximum the Hormone has interesting sounds, but I could care less about having the t-shirt or taking the lyrics seriously. I love listening to and playing classical guitar, and for me at least metal is not something that you necessarily grow out of. P.S. no downvote from me because not everyone can or should be expected to love every form of music
saiya-jin 11y ago
I would if I could, and i think we both understand why. what you describe as yourself is "fashion metal listener" to me, unfortunately probably most popular type, especially in late '90s/early '00s. what many of us are is deeper - in hard rock & heavy metal I found something that works with me, makes me happy etc. The genre itself is slowly evolving, but this is not something I care for - I listen it for same reasons as before, and expect same effect as before... which is delivered, 110%. if I pick 1 out of gazillions of bands - Iron Maiden - take their album from 80s, take any recent and compare. Technical quality aside (which went from stone age to 21st century) - some say not as good as before, some say better, for me - same quality, delivered in a bit different way.
hrnnnnnn 11y ago
"...hardly evolving at all" Have you heard Between the Buried and Me, Animals as Leaders, Meshuggah, Intronaut or Haken?
- peterashford 11y ago
  Yeah - Animals as Leaders sprung to mind, as well as Tesseract. I think someone has mistaken their ignorance for a lack of material.
teps 11y ago
Did it ever occur to you that you certainly wasn't interested at all in that music? I know some people who where only interested in metal because it made them more rebellious. Their interests quickly fade always as they grew up and now they are the first to tell everybody how it's a music for teen. I remark that your souvenir is about your idols and how they acted/are dressed and not that much about the music. But some people are genuinely interested in metal and if you happen to be a bit curious, it's easy to see that it's not more rigid, codified or stalled that any other genre.
- Udik 11y ago
  There are two comments, yours and another one, that suggest that I might not ever been a "true listener" of heavy metal. That's the "no true scotsman" fallacy. Why can't someone who sincerely enjoyed a genre of music in his teens outgrow it? No, better, outgrow the whole idea of genres. Heavy metal is (you have to admit that) a pretty rigidly codified type of music. It requires a certain set of instruments, with few variations (I still remember debates in the eighties on whether keyboards were kosher). It mostly deals with a fixed set of themes. It sounds in a very recognizable way, so it's rather easy to classify songs that fall into it. Performers dress in a codified way, also easily recognizable. (To all these points there are obviously a few exceptions here and there, as always.) As for the richness of subgenres: it seems to me that these subgenres are just the partitioning of a fixed space of immutable size. The urge to classify them is another proof of the fact that the rules of the genre are so rigidly codified that the slightest deviation or emphasis on an element requires (or allows) a new classification bucket.
  - CWuestefeld 11y ago
    Heavy metal is (you have to admit that) a pretty rigidly codified type of music. It requires a certain set of instruments, with few variations Nothing could be further from the truth. For example, the OP itself talked about "folk metal", a sub-genre that uses traditional themes, musical styles, and instruments. It sounds in a very recognizable way, so it's rather easy to classify songs that fall into it. Again, you've missed out (and even claimed that it never happened) a HUGE amount of evolution. Metal fans love to bicker and debate, and you'll see, for example, discussions over whether the evolved Opeth, that eschews their older death metal trappings, still counts as metal at all. In the proggy sub-genres that I enjoy, there's ample debate over whether a particular band or song is prog metal or "just" prog rock. In its infancy, much of metal was dismissed as being stupid, three-chord performances. It's evolved so that today, it's undoubtedly the most technically demanding genre within the entire poo & rock oeuvre. Bands like Meshuggah, or the whole math-metal sub-genre, are performing music so technically demanding that no high school garage band is going to get near it. In its expansion into these prog, technical, death, extreme, folk, etc directions, there is no doubt that the variety of expression covered by metal today is many orders of magnitude greater than in its younger days.
ta0967 11y ago
i agree that lots of music is ridiculous and backwards, extremely rigid and codified, hardly evolving at all. have you heard any blues lately? :) but seriously, the impression you describe is of your own making. metal is much wider musically and lyrically than the narrow subsection you used to listen to as a kid. try UneXpect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVwl3kZwRX0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVwl3kZwRX0

by Udik 11y ago

fsloth 11y ago

This is quite a surprising view. "Not evolving" bit especially. As a factual example of evolution in the non-satanist non-warrior sense Nightwish's latest album 'Endless forms most beautiful' "was primarily inspired by the work of naturalist Charles Darwin". [1] Pun intended :) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endless_Forms_Most_Beautiful_(album) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endless_Forms_Most_Beautiful_(...

vacri 11y ago

> still singing the same stuff after decades, is a sorry one. I imagine you consider classical music backwards, then, and look down upon it. It's stayed the same for centuries...

ta0967 11y ago
> It's stayed the same for centuries... that's _seriously_ wrong.

gaius 11y ago

There are plenty of new genres since then, power metal, space metal, pirate metal...

venomsnake 11y ago

Can you explain the non evolving part? We have so many new subgenres and bands with excellent technical capabilities?

cjslep 11y ago

I'm curious what you've listened to that makes you think it hasn't evolved since those times. Bathory, Cradle Of Filth, Napalm Death, Belphegor, Skeletonwitch, Dream Theatre, Watain, Kalmah, Exodus, Daylight Dies? Because there's a lot of new stuff that broke out cleanly into sub-genres (Insomnium, In Flames, Amon Amarth, Septicflesh, Avantasia, Blind Guardian, Eluveite, Sleep, Abagail Williams, Alestorm etc) and now there's quite a few bands that blur those lines as a form of counter-culture (Deafhaven, Fallujah, Meshuggah, Atoma).

mclovinit 11y ago

Hmm. I wouldn't say it's backwards. It's nothing more than another art form (sounds so cliche, but true nonetheless). If it is backwards, what is considered the defacto standard? The same could be said for Jazz, Pop, Classical when compared to others. I happen to love metal (older 80s to 90s), but listen to anything newer that gets me through a good workout in the garage ;) Maximum the Hormone has interesting sounds, but I could care less about having the t-shirt or taking the lyrics seriously. I love listening to and playing classical guitar, and for me at least metal is not something that you necessarily grow out of. P.S. no downvote from me because not everyone can or should be expected to love every form of music

saiya-jin 11y ago

I would if I could, and i think we both understand why. what you describe as yourself is "fashion metal listener" to me, unfortunately probably most popular type, especially in late '90s/early '00s. what many of us are is deeper - in hard rock & heavy metal I found something that works with me, makes me happy etc. The genre itself is slowly evolving, but this is not something I care for - I listen it for same reasons as before, and expect same effect as before... which is delivered, 110%. if I pick 1 out of gazillions of bands - Iron Maiden - take their album from 80s, take any recent and compare. Technical quality aside (which went from stone age to 21st century) - some say not as good as before, some say better, for me - same quality, delivered in a bit different way.

hrnnnnnn 11y ago

"...hardly evolving at all" Have you heard Between the Buried and Me, Animals as Leaders, Meshuggah, Intronaut or Haken?

peterashford 11y ago
Yeah - Animals as Leaders sprung to mind, as well as Tesseract. I think someone has mistaken their ignorance for a lack of material.

teps 11y ago

Did it ever occur to you that you certainly wasn't interested at all in that music? I know some people who where only interested in metal because it made them more rebellious. Their interests quickly fade always as they grew up and now they are the first to tell everybody how it's a music for teen. I remark that your souvenir is about your idols and how they acted/are dressed and not that much about the music. But some people are genuinely interested in metal and if you happen to be a bit curious, it's easy to see that it's not more rigid, codified or stalled that any other genre.

Udik 11y ago
There are two comments, yours and another one, that suggest that I might not ever been a "true listener" of heavy metal. That's the "no true scotsman" fallacy. Why can't someone who sincerely enjoyed a genre of music in his teens outgrow it? No, better, outgrow the whole idea of genres. Heavy metal is (you have to admit that) a pretty rigidly codified type of music. It requires a certain set of instruments, with few variations (I still remember debates in the eighties on whether keyboards were kosher). It mostly deals with a fixed set of themes. It sounds in a very recognizable way, so it's rather easy to classify songs that fall into it. Performers dress in a codified way, also easily recognizable. (To all these points there are obviously a few exceptions here and there, as always.) As for the richness of subgenres: it seems to me that these subgenres are just the partitioning of a fixed space of immutable size. The urge to classify them is another proof of the fact that the rules of the genre are so rigidly codified that the slightest deviation or emphasis on an element requires (or allows) a new classification bucket.
- CWuestefeld 11y ago
  Heavy metal is (you have to admit that) a pretty rigidly codified type of music. It requires a certain set of instruments, with few variations Nothing could be further from the truth. For example, the OP itself talked about "folk metal", a sub-genre that uses traditional themes, musical styles, and instruments. It sounds in a very recognizable way, so it's rather easy to classify songs that fall into it. Again, you've missed out (and even claimed that it never happened) a HUGE amount of evolution. Metal fans love to bicker and debate, and you'll see, for example, discussions over whether the evolved Opeth, that eschews their older death metal trappings, still counts as metal at all. In the proggy sub-genres that I enjoy, there's ample debate over whether a particular band or song is prog metal or "just" prog rock. In its infancy, much of metal was dismissed as being stupid, three-chord performances. It's evolved so that today, it's undoubtedly the most technically demanding genre within the entire poo & rock oeuvre. Bands like Meshuggah, or the whole math-metal sub-genre, are performing music so technically demanding that no high school garage band is going to get near it. In its expansion into these prog, technical, death, extreme, folk, etc directions, there is no doubt that the variety of expression covered by metal today is many orders of magnitude greater than in its younger days.

ta0967 11y ago

i agree that lots of music is ridiculous and backwards, extremely rigid and codified, hardly evolving at all. have you heard any blues lately? :) but seriously, the impression you describe is of your own making. metal is much wider musically and lyrically than the narrow subsection you used to listen to as a kid. try UneXpect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVwl3kZwRX0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVwl3kZwRX0